458 486 1 PB
458 486 1 PB
458 486 1 PB
SPANGLER, PH.D.
Several sociocultural factors have been shown to impact body image. The purpose ofthe present study was to determine whether the sociocultural variable of religion, specifically represented by the Church ofJesus Christ ofLatterday Saint (LDS) religion, affects body image in college-age students. Questionnaires assessing body image and
beliifs about appearance were administered to male and female LDS and non-LDS students at Brigham Young
University, University of Utah, Boston University, and California State University at Fullerton. Results indicated that male students, regardless of religion, were more satiified with their bodies than their female counterparts.
Within-gender comparisons indicated that LDS men had higher body satiifaction on allsubscales than non-LDS
men. In contrast, LDS women did not Significantly differ from non-LDS women in mean level of body satiifaction. However, among LDS women, those in Utah differed from those in other states in appearance evaluation,
overweight preoccupation, and beliifs about appearance. Regression analyses revealed that beliifs about appearance
were a strong predictor ofbody image for both men and women, but that religion predicted body image only among
men. Possible explanations and implications of these results are discussed.
- - -
-----------
DIANE L. SPANGLER
Culture
Levels of body-image dissatisfaction have been shown
to vary as a function of culture and subculture. Within
the United States, body image dissatisfaction is highest
among Caucasian-American women, whereas AfricanAmerican and Hispanic women consistently score higher
in positive body image than Caucasian Americans (Gray,
1977). Similarly, body image dissatisfaction and eating
pathology have been shown to be significantly higher in
the United States as compared to several other countries,
particularly non-Western countries. Additionally, in persons immigrating to the United States, positive carrelatiOl,s between degree of Westernization and body dissatisfaction and eating pathology have been found (see Stice,
1994, for review). Becker (1995) has explained such findings as demonstrating that cultural-specific aesthetic and
moral ideals regarding the body are developed by cultures
and that cultures vary in their values and expectations for
body shape and weight. Additionally, within-culture variation can occur where the culture assigns different standards and values to the body for particular subgroups
within that culture (e.g., ethnic minorities or women).
Media effects
One factor strongly linked to body image dissatisfaction, which may also mediate cultural differences in
body dissatisfaction, is the degree of exposure to thinideal media. At present, the Western female body ideal
is considered ectomorphic or thin. This has changed
from a past body norm for women that was more voluptuous. The media in Western cultures have portrayed a
steadily thinning ideal of the female body (e.g., Garner,
Garfinkel, Schwartz & Thompson, 1980; Stice, 1994).
An example of the media's portrayal of an increasingly
thinner ideal body size is evident in beauty pageants. In
the 1960's, the average Miss America contestant weighed
93% of her expected weight for her respective age and
height category. In contrast, in 1988,60% of the contestants weighed only 85% of their expected weight. Several
additional studies report a significant decrease in the
average body mass index of women models and actresses over the last two decades (Levine & Smolak, 1996;
7
VOLUME 26
Age
Body satisfaction tends to vary as a function of age
and developmental stage. Teenagers are significantly
less satisfied with their bodies than pre-adolescents
(Brodie, Bagley & Slade, 1994). Furthermore, Gray
(1977) found that adult (non-adolescent) individuals
tend to have more positive affect about their bodies
than adolescent individuals. Research specifically related to college populations has shown that body dissatisfaction and body image concern is higher among this
8
DIANE L. SPANGLER
VOLUME 26
of (dis)agreement with statements on a 1 (d1iflnitely disagree) to 5 (dejlnitely agree) scale. Four MBSRQ subscales
(described below) were used in the current study. The
numeric responses for each scale were averaged so that
the possible scores for each scale ranged from 1 to 5.
Factor analytic studies have confirmed the factor structure and construct validiry of the MBSRQ, and several
additional studies have shown the MBSRQ to possess
convergent and divergent validity as well as internal consistency and test-retest reliability (see Cash, 1994, for a
review of the psychometric properties of the MSBRQ).
The four subscales used in this study were:
Procedures
After permission was obtained from instructors, participants in courses that fulfilled General Education
requirements received a packet of questionnaires to
complete on a voluntary basis. They either completed
and returned the packet at the end of the class period or
took the packet home and returned it the following class
period, depending upon the instructor's wishes. General
Education classes were chosen to avoid any bias that
could arise from sampling participants that were largely
from one particular field of study.
Measures
Areas Satisfaction scale was .75 and the 1-month testretest reliability was .80 (Cash, 1994).
Table 1
13.66
2/4
DIANE L. SPANGLER
ANOVA Analysis
,-----------_._---,' -
Scale
~APPEV-;--
F
df(b, w)
- - - - i - - - - - - ----
. -
~--
APPORF
,,--_ .. -
SATIS
15.56
_ .. _-
t__
i..-----
(3. 489)
019l1
043
.j
(3. 465) .
.OO.O~
(3, 463)
.OO~
(3, 486)
..
OWPR
.
BAAS
._:~~~J
3.52 I
.000 :
.015J
Between-Gender Contrasts
Men versus Women, The planned contrast comparing
men and women (regardless of religion) revealed significant mean differences on every scale (see Table 2).
Specifically, men had more positive feelings about their
physical appearance and were significantly more satisfied
with their bodies than women. In addition, men had
lower levels of appearance investment and weight preoccupation, and were less likely to believe that their success,
happiness and self-worth were dependent upon their
appearance than were women.
LDS Men versus LDS Women. Furthermore, when comparisons were nude between LOS men and LOS
women the differences became even more pronounced
in beliefs about appearance. LOS men had more positive feelings about their physical appearance, and higher
body satisfaction than LOS women. LOS men also had
significantly lower levels of weight preoccupation and
markedly lower levels of beliefs that their success, happiness, and self-worth were dependent upon their
appearance than LOS women, but did not differ from
LOS women in the amount of time and effort devoted
to appearance.
Non-LDS Men versus Non-LDS Women. In contrast,
comparisons of non- LOS men with non-LOS women
revealed that non-LOS men and non-LOS women did
not differ in their level of beliefs that their appearance
was central to their success, happiness and self-worth,
nor did these non-LOS groups differ in their levels of
Data Analyses
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the means on the subscales of the MBSRQ and the
BAAS between fout groups consisting of: male LOS,
male non-LOS, female LOS, and female non-LOS.
Several planned (a priori) contrasts were made between:
(a) men and women; (b) LOS men and LOS women;
(c) non-LOS men and non-LOS women; (d) LOS and
non-LOS men, (e) LOS and non-LOS women. An
additional independent t-test was conducted between
LOS students in Utah versus LOS students in other
states. Finally, a regression analysis was performed to
determine whether religion or other demographic variables predicted body image satisfaction and appearance
orientation. The order of entry of variables in the regression equations was: age, LOS status, state (living in or
outside of Utah), and beliefs about appearance (BAAS).
RESULTS
ANOVA
The overall ANOVA was significant for all subscales of
the MBSRQ and for the BAAS, indicating the existence
of group differences on all measures. Table 1 displays the
overall ANOVA F-values and their respective p values.
Results from the planned contrasts are presented below.
I I
VOLUME 26
-------------~----------
Table 3
Table 2
-1.-------I
APPEVF
[APP_O_R_F
~_mean(Sd~'=~lj
Scale
SATIS
Men
Women
3.16 (.40)
2.99 (.40)
4.54
Men
Women
3.09 (.39)
3.18 (.36)
-2.42
Men
Watnen
3.60 (.60)
3.30 (.68)
Men
Women
1.88 (.72)
2.70 (.95)
--
"' LOS
M,"
Women
I.
I'
~,IAPPOR!'
, SATIS
.000
Men ,
Wonlen
-9.93
.000
r OWPR
Non-LOS
"5.37
---.:J
APPEVF
(n=152)
I (n=116)
,BAAS
[
-.92
.358
3.76 (.56)
3.31 (.67)
5.95
.000
--
BAAS
1.77 (.70)
2.72 (.95)
Men
20.62 (12.69)
25.98 (16.51)
W0111Cn
--
--
__
f----------
Men
Wotnen
APPORF
SATIS
OWPR
----
BAAS
3.07 (.3a=1.62
2.97 (.38)
--
I
I
('3~)--1-_---2~031.,-----
.019
Men
3.44 (.64)
3.29 (.69)
1.52
.129
Wonlcn
Men
2.01 (.74)
-5.21
.000
97
.043
.001
.049
_-_._-------
-196 ;
I
!
WOI11:~-..l---_--
LOS
Non-LOS
3.00 (.42)
LO~1_
---
LDS
Non-LDS
---
OWPR
LO,~
.55
~97 (.38)
3.19 (.37) I
3.12( 3~5)1'
3.31 (.67)
3.29 (69)
,---
.34
.731
.21
.836
.37
.712
---
2.72 (.95)
_L
.326
_
WOtnen
2.68 (.96)
- - - - - - - - - f-------~f------~f - - - - - - -
.28
-1.
'I'
-----~--~'-----_...
---
-2.35
3.46
3:~4~___1
----------- ---------- !
3.76 (.56)
1.77 (.70)
2.01 (.74)
.002
I~;s Non-~~~~9::~~.~~~_
3.04 (.39)
3.17 (.35)
24.79 (14.40)
24.15 (15.97)
JOsh
APPORl'
___ ~~I~r::>.S
SATIS
~.O~~
Men
Women
Men
Women
....j
j __
3.15
3.04 (.39)
-3.13
3.11
----
--.J
.000
-9.45
'
3.25 (.44)
3.07 (.37)
-----_---------1-----------,----
"-.000
3.15 (.39)
3.19 (.37)
Men
Women
---
OWPR
LOsl,,---
Non-LOS
----_._-----
-1.67
Men
LOS
Non-LOS
LOS
Non-LOS
325 (.41)
3.00 (.42)
Men
APPEVF
(n=155)
(n=74)
..L~an(~_
--,------
--------
f~:;, ;:::- I
Women
SATIS
f-------
.0~6.
4.87 '
BAAS
APPORF
.000
S"""'--
OWPR
APPEVF
I----~-----
.776
12
- I
DIANE L. SPANGLER
Table 4
Scale means ofLDS students in Utah versus ourside ofUrah. by gender
r-~---
Scale
!
i
111_\SD~Ju __~_J
df
Men
APPEVF
Utah
(n=99)
(n=56) Non-Urah
3.31 (047)
3.17 (.35)
1.975
APPORF
Utah
Non-Utah
3.14 (.39)
3.13 (.33)
.300
3.78 (.56)
3.75 (.54)
.224
Utah.!
Non-Urah
1.72 (.61)
1.79 (.77)
152
.051
SATIS
Utah
Non-Urah
_.-
--
OWPR
-----------[
BAAS
Urah
Non-Urah
152
137
_.- ._- - - - - -
-.569
137
.823
.570
-~-~
20.66 (12.54)
20042 (13.13)
.111
152
.912
.1061
J48
.915
150
.008
Women
I
APPEVF
(n=94)
Urah
(n=58) Non-Utah
II
i
APPORF
Utah
Non-Urah
3.26 (040)
3.09 (.32)
SATIS
Utah
Non-Urah
3.29 (.64)
3.33 (.71)
-.339
143
.735
OWPR
Utah
Non-Utah
2.87 (.97)
2.53 (.89)
2.152
142
.033
BAAS
Utah
Non-Utah
28047 (17.37)
22.02 (13.71)
2.347
148
.020
2.710
_.-
Regression Analyses
]vIa/e. Four separace regression analyses were conducted for each of the four MBSRQ subscales used as
dependent variables. Predictors were age, LOS status,
scate (i.e., in or outside of Utah) and BAAS scores,
respectively. As shown in Table 5, the overall models ( F
values) were significant for all four regressions. For men,
LOS status and beliefs about appearance (i.e., the
BAAS) were significant predictors of appearance orientation, body satisfaction and weight preoccupation.
Specifically, being LOS was associated with greater
13
VOLUME 26
_.._ - - - - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - -
DISCUSSION
Table 6
Correlations between variables, male participants
Table 5
Regression Analyses
~~~-TPredictor
----l
~-P~-EVF
40~~7
PR~~ 11
) 6
= .18,
-.
LOS
ST ATE
BAAS
~<~OO~2)-4.94,
I
I
"(42SS) 7 92
=. . ,
, R'= .12
~T ATE
i
BAA~
-
-1~ - 241
-2.06
04
i - :::
-.1/ (.06)
00 (.OS)
29 (.00)
-2.42 I
01
0.;0;t--{'98
4.47
.00
-.14(.06)
-.22 (.09)
-.04 (.08)
-.29 (.00)
-219
-310
-0. 62
-4.49
.01 (.10)
.21 (.00)
-.19
03
.00
.S41
.00
;:~fl :~~
0.17
3.0S I
.87
.00 ,
(.0m-) ----=0:31 [
'6~;31
APPO~F--- AGE-----:
-.08 (.03)
-1.3S.18
F(4,2S7)=6.21,
000
~~~ 13
-.01 (.OS)
-.07 (.OS)
-0.14
-1.11
.89
.27
-0.41
-0.42 I
0.661
.68
.671
.SI
,LOS
STATE
1 BAAS
BA~S_\
_---~
..-
APPEVF
--
APPORF
.26**
--
SATIS
.52**
.17*
--
OWPR
EOC
-.17*
.17*
-.21 **
--
BAAS
-.14*
.27**
-.33**
.24**
AGE
LO.S
STATE
BAAS
-.03 (.08) ,
-.04 (08) I
( )
__
~~O
~~~!.07 (.07)
0.97 '
.00 (.ll)
.01 (.ll)
.5S (.00)
-0.44
O.ll
10.28
APPORF
SATIS
OWPR
EOC
BAAS
--
. 60
.00
.27l~00)4.S~00
LOS
STATE
:t
R'= 21
OWPREOC
F(4,243)= 27 lS ,
000
~~= .31
-_ ..
---IAGY--jlf.Q2(.OS)
F(4,24S)=lS.16,
p<.OOO
APPEVF
Table 7
-.03 (.OS)
-.03 (.OS)
-.33 (.00)
-O.4S '
-0.S2 i
-S.61
.7S
: LOS
'. S.T
. ATE..
BAAS
I
-~ATIS
Scale
*p < .OS
**p < .01
APPEVF = Appearance Evaluation SC<lle; APPORF = Appear<lnce Investment
Scale; SA TIS = Body Satisfaction Scale; OWPR = Weight Preoccupation Scale;
BAAS = Belie}s Auout Appearance Scale
--I
Women (n=268)
APp~~~--rAGE
~<.OOO
AG
LOS
. STATE.
BAAS
I
I
~--- -~
'I
-;(~PR~~cllg~-I-~n~ll
R2= .09.
08 (04)
-.IS (.06)
I,
[1
ISATIS
, F(4202) 10 6S
'. p<.OOO =
. ,
R'= .18
Men (n=229)
AGE -LOS
'~\~~~;il8 I~~:S
r'(
['
Beta (stderror)
Scale
APPEVF
APPORF
SATIS
OWPR
EOC
APPEVF
--
APPORF
.16**
--
SATIS
.63**
.06*
--
OWPR
EOC
-.33*
.3S*
-.41 **
--
BAAS
-.33*
.28**
-.44**
.5S**
BAAS
l'OlO
.33
.96
.91
.00
--
-.
*p < .OS
**p < .01
APPEVF = Appeamnce Evaluation Scale; APPORF = Appeamnce Investment
Scale; SA TIS = Body Satisfaction Scale; OWPR = Weight Preoccupation Scale;
BAAS = Beliefs Auout Appearance Scale
14
DIANE L. SPANGlER
VOLUME 26
DIANE L. SPANGLER
Monographs, 113,509-528.
Koff, E., Rierdan, j. & Stubbs, M.L. (1990). Gender, body image,
and self-concept in early adolescence. journal of Early Adolescence,
10,56-58.
Brodie, D. A., Bagley, K. & Slade, P. D. (1994). Body-image perception in pre- and post-adolescent females. Perceptual and Motor
Levine, M.P. & Smolak, L. (1996). Media s a context for the devel-
Brown, T. A., Cash, T E & Mikulka, P. j. (1990). Attitudinal bodyimage assessment: Factor analysis of the Body-Self Relations
Monteath, S.A. & McCabe, M.P. (1997). The influence of societal fac-
727.
Cash, TE & Henry, P.E. (1995). Women's body images: The results
ence does gender make? journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 27, 1438-
Cash, T.E, Winstead, B.W. & Janda, L.H (1986). The great
1452.
Family, 1, 207-215.
Dolan, B.M., Birtchnell, S.A. & Lacey,j.H (1987). Body image distortion in non-eating disordered women and men. journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 31, 513-520.
Rauste-von Wright, M. (1989). Body image satisfaction in adolescent girls and boys: A longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 18,71-83.
Nebraska symposium on motivation: Psychology and gender (pp. 269307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Gray, S.H. (1977). Social aspects of body image: Perception of normalcy of weight and affect of college undergraduates. Perceptual
Silverstein, B., Perdue, L., Peterson, B. & Kelly, E. (1986). The role
of the mass media in promoting a rhin standard of bodily attractiveness for women. Sex Roles, 14,519-523.
VOLUME 26
------ -
Smith,].E (1919). Gospel doctrine: Selections from the sermons and writings
~---_.-
55,669-713.
Spangler, D.L. (2002). Testing the cognitive model of eating disorders: The role of dysfunctional beliefs about appearance. Behavior
Therapy, 33,87-105.
Turner, S.L., Hamilton, H., Jacobs, ]\;1.. Allgood, L.M. & Dwyer,
Stice, E., Presnell, K. & Spangler, D.L. (2002). Risk factors for binge
131-138.
Psychology, 103,836-840.
18